Slashdot Mirror


Chrome 44 Launches With Tweaks To Push Messaging and Notifications

An anonymous reader writes: Google has launched Chrome 44 for Windows, Mac, and Linux with new developer tools. Aside from a host of security fixes, this release focuses mainly on developer features. The API for push notifications was updated to match the specification, a new implementation of multi-column layout was added, and they've extended support for Unicode escapes in strings. The full changelog notes a number of performance improvements as well.

31 of 67 comments (clear)

  1. Glad somebody is taking columns seriously by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I find the lack of columns one of the more striking failures of CSS design. They don't appear to have consulted with anybody who actually knew anything about why things get laid on on a page the way they do. Line lengths are one of the more important factors in determining how easy it is to read something; the eye has a hard time tracking back on wide texts. Default layouts try to compensate with wide spacing, which just wastes a lot of space (and looks, at least to me, very unappealing).

    I look forward to other browsers implementing this, so that web page designers (especially for responsible web pages) start using it instead of the hacks and design compromises they're currently forced into.

    1. Re:Glad somebody is taking columns seriously by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

      One striking failure of website design is to make it as large as the browser window. Up to a point it used to be a good thing until we reached 1024x768 displays. But with today's widescreen monitors it doesn't even make sense to have your browser window full-width to begin with...

    2. Re:Glad somebody is taking columns seriously by aaron4801 · · Score: 1, Interesting

      This.
      Adding multi-column support will only encourage poorly designed websites to USE it. It may work in a few select scenarios, but most of the time, it will encourage one of two bad designs:
      A. Two columns that both extend down the page "below the fold," such that you have to scroll down to finish the first column, then back to the top to read the second. Ugh.
      B. Cutting off page content "at the fold" and forcing a slideshow on any content that extends beyond what's visible on one screen.
      Multi-columns might be useful for short content that's visible on a single screen, or two columns of independent content, but for the vast majority of what's out there, a single scrolling column with plenty of whitespace on both sides is the best layout.

    3. Re:Glad somebody is taking columns seriously by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But with today's widescreen monitors it doesn't even make sense to have your browser window full-width to begin with...

      Sure it does. Today's wide-screen monitors almost seem to have been designed for browsers with tabs on the side, but Google refuses to see that. In Firefox, I can allocate 20% of my wide screen to the browser tabs, which makes them wide enough to actually read the text within the tabs! Imagine that!

      Chrome will remain a 3rd-rate browser until it makes (at least) 3 changes:
      1) Natively allow tabs on the side (often called vertical tabs)
      2) Fix the shitty memory allocation
      3) Use/obey/follow DNS shortcuts instead of Googling unknown, single-word entries in the address bar

    4. Re:Glad somebody is taking columns seriously by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Especially with the large number of small devices in the mix. Increasingly, web sites are targeting tiny screens. Which actually makes the column feature moot; this feature would have come in handy a while ago.

      Fortunately, if done properly, it degrades nicely. Small screen, one column. Wide screen, several columns (which has advantages over scrolling, since it's easier for the eye to jump a column than to keep track of a position during a scroll.)

    5. Re:Glad somebody is taking columns seriously by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      The single column approach is implemented poorly too. Very often, my experience is that the white space on either side is not proportional to the width of the window. What happens is that the page extends past the left and right window borders and the page has to be scrolled horizontally to center the text within the window. Even worse is reading on the phone and having the column not shrink to the width of the window.

  2. Re:Let's welcome the slower web by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1. Define "fast", are we talking 3 second load time or something else

    2. What Features you need vs what you want, why are you using that site

    3. Hardware, are you using a 10 year old computer to use something feature rich like Facebook?

    One solution is to write your own extension to block shit you don't want that's slowing your experience down.

    The final thing I can think of is maybe its the browser you're using. I used to think my old (8 yrs old) computer had some kind of problem, I was running Chrome and it was just maddening, I switched to Firefox and discovered much to my surprise that Chrome itself just didn't run well, all of a sudden sites came back to life.

    If you sit there waiting for devs to write better sites just for you, well, you'll be there a long time

  3. Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I'll just wait two more weeks for Chrome 76.

    1. Re:Meh by invictusvoyd · · Score: 1

      I have no intention to wait for chrome 88

  4. Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by Hadlock · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Sometime in the last five releases it feels like the number of memory leaks in Chrome have just skyrocketed. Maybe I'm not the normal use case, but I typically leave Chrome and various tabs open for days or weeks at a time, and eventually causes Windows to panic and close Chrome to recover that memory. My wild-ass-guess is that it's related to HTML5 video but maybe it's something else. I freakin' love chrome, but the memory leaks are seriously making me consider something a little more stable.
     
    Chrome is the only application I use that ever, ever has memory leaks now in 2015.

    --
    moox. for a new generation.
    1. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by Eowaennor · · Score: 2

      I have been crashing more and more lately just trying to google something. That is the only thing that crashes chrome for me.. Cmon Google, get your own damn search to work with your own damn browser at least.

    2. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by p0p0 · · Score: 1

      Flash or another extension? Flash seems to be the only memory eater for me. I've left multiple tabs open for days and never had a problem. Next to Flash I think Adblock is the next biggest resource hog.

    3. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by CreatureComfort · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, that's just because you don't use Firefox any more. I just switched to Chrome from Firefox because it had become absolutely unusable due to memory leaks.

      Opening Firefox in the morning, it loads into ~250,000 K (!) on open. After a day of browsing, and closing back to my single home tab (Google.com), it would be using ~350,000 K. Leave it overnight, with just that home tab open, in the morning it would be using 800,000 K - 1,200,000 K and the entire OS would be at a crawl until I closed the process.

      BTW, Chrome always seems to use about 200,000 K - 250,000 K no matter what I'm doing.

      --
      "Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
      Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
    4. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by asavage · · Score: 1

      You should look at how much memory chrome uses by visiting about:memory. I use both Firefox and Chrome and Firefox uses substantially less memory then Chrome to display the same web pages.

    5. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by tomxor · · Score: 1

      If you don't actually know what the memory leak is then how do you know if it's in chromium and not the page you are looking at... memory leaks can exist in a piece of javascript code, in which case all chrome can do is limit it's maximum size and warn you about it.

    6. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by Hadlock · · Score: 1

      Yeah you're right, an acknowledged bug directly reproducible by using one of Google's core revenue-generating products (YouTube, you may not have heard of it, it's kind of new) is mostly irrelevant and won't cause issues for anyone else. Sorry to make such a fuss.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    7. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Maybe you upgraded to 64 bit?
      Use 32 bit Chrome instead?

      Then again now with the version I have (likely 43) Chrome crashes in Windows without Windows ever saying it's running out of RAM.

    8. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      I just switched to Chrome from Firefox because it had become absolutely unusable due to memory leaks.

      Marty McFly? Welcome back to the future!

      Maybe you should look into this whole memory thing as your complaints are very 2005. Sounds like you have a badly behaving plugin given that Chrome uses more memory than any other browser across the board and Firefox hasn't had a decent memory leak for at least as long as the USA has had a black president.

      Oh sorry for spoiling that for you.

    9. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      You seem to be under the apprehension that Chrome has any control at all over what gets swapped out. Perhaps you should become less ignorant before spouting off.

    10. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by bemymonkey · · Score: 1

      >Chrome is the only application I use that ever, ever has memory leaks now in 2015.

      Have you tried Firefox with Adblock Plus lately? Very fun.

    11. Re:Can we maybe fix the memory leaks? by Endlisnis · · Score: 1

      Chrome uses 100M *per tab*. I just checked about:memory, and I saw my Chrome at 2.5G with about 20 tabs open. My Gmail tab uses 210M. I don't see how your entire Chrome can use the same amount of memory as just one of my Chrome tabs.

  5. Re:Chrome is for cows. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Hi user:sexconker (1179573), we know it's you, you forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" box earlier:

    http://news.slashdot.org/comme...

  6. Re:Lets just hope by gstoddart · · Score: 1

    Honestly, reading the thread ... you posted something, got modded down, whined about it, and then got told to stop whining about it, and now you're acting like some outraged fool.

    Boo hoo, you got modded down on the intertubes. It's not some horrible tragedy, and your continuing to keep bitching about it makes you sound like a child.

    Seriously, grow a pair and stop whining about how tragic it is you got moderated down and then told to stop whining about it.

    Is that fucking clear enough? Or do you need a timeout so you can stop acting like a spoiled brat?

    Because it's way too damned annoying to see people whining about the injustices of the moderation system, because it tells us you haven't got a clue that it's a bunch of random monkeys banging on keys.

    Get over it already.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  7. Am I being paranoid... by wwalker · · Score: 2

    ... or it's actually not possible to implement Push Messaging and Notifications without every message going through Google's servers (or GCM, Google Cloud Messaging)? Somehow I don't see this "feature" being all that popular, considering tracking/snooping and Google's discontinuing its services willy-nilly. And it looks like you have to actually pay Google if you want to send more than 10,000 notifications per day.

    1. Re:Am I being paranoid... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Have you been living under a rock for the past 7 years?

  8. Dammit, Mozilla! by brianerst · · Score: 1

    Geez, another release? Why do they insist on revving the release numbers so often? Mozilla really jumped the shark when they made Chrome match the ridiculous version numbering scheme of Google's Firefox browser.

    Every flipping couple of weeks, Mozilla comes out with another version of Chrome with a list of "improvements" that no one wants while ignoring the obvious memory bloat and CPU utilization problems caused by their stupid multiprocess tab browsing. I remember when Mozilla Chrome was a sleek, fast browser - now it's a bloated mess. And when are they ever going to have the rich Add-Ons ecosystem that Google has had for-freaking-ever?

    I swear to God I'm going to switch to Google Firefox if this crap keeps up.

  9. Chrome 44 launches without... by lhowaf · · Score: 1

    ...support for Java. No Webmin. Piss off.

  10. Re:Let's welcome the slower web by spauldo · · Score: 1

    I'm not a professional web designer, but I've taken a few jobs doing it.

    They do it because that's what their customers want.

    Most of the people wanting websites (and willing to pay for them) aren't tech savvy. They're business people, often small business people. And to them, all that flashy Javascript and animations look "professional."

    I once designed a website for a dialup ISP. The default page template I made for them had one small graphic - their logo. Everything else was standard HTML and CSS 1. It was well organized, with the links easy to find for both customers and prospective customers, and it was classy, if minimalist. I included setup pages for four versions of Windows, MacOS classic, MacOS X, and even a page with info for Linux users (if you've never dealt with the different distributions in the days of dialup, count yourself lucky. It was a crapshoot.).

    They used it for a couple months, and then paid someone else (probably a lot more) for a horrible, ugly clusterfuck that took a long time to load (I did mention this was dialup, right?), centered everything in a tiny column in the middle based on percentage (imagine that on an 800x600 screen, old but not uncommon at the time), had little information besides marketing bullshit, and required newer browsers than many of their customers had. They didn't even include email setup instructions.

    These guys ran an ISP (albeit in redneck central). They should have understood the issues. Someone running a pottery shop? No chance.

    --
    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  11. Re:Lets just hope by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1, Funny

    Are you a fucked-up moron in real life, or do you just play one on slashdot?

  12. Re:Firefox is falling so far behind now. by iampiti · · Score: 1

    I don't think those are the reasons people have stopped using Firefox. As far as I remember people started migrating en masse towars Chrome a long time ago, much earlier than the controversial UI changes and the Pocket stuff. In fact, all the controversial Firefox changes are quite recent.

  13. Re:Lets just hope by pla · · Score: 1

    Did you actually have a point, or just wanted to play a flaming douchenozzle on Slashdot?